Should the uk pay for migrants in Calais?

According to President Emmanuel Macron the Uk should pay more for the migrants in the jungle camps of Calais. Surely these “refugees” aren’t going to be persecuted in France (or whatever European country they first come to) and they are only camping outside in France because they are economic migrants. So why should the UK tax payer foot the bill?

What are your thoughts?

*FYI I have no prejudices about actual real refugees coming to this country to escape danger.

But it’s ok, they are economic migrants, whatever that is supposed to mean. They are lured from Eritrea or Syria (where they certainly lived comfortable lives, give or take war and/or dictatorship) by the prospects of bitcoin mining I am sure.

@billy The Le Touquet agreement is a bilateral agremment between France and UK so not in theory related to Brexit but renegotiation could be used as leverage in Brexit talks.

That said, a fuller answer to your original post would be that the French also benefit from the Le Tourquet agreement: the agreement makes it harder for people to apply for refugee / asylum status in the UK, so most likely reduces the steady stream of migrants traipsing through france hoping to get to the UK.

The UK does already pay for much of the border infrastructure in Calais under the terms of the Le Tourquet agreement. Not sure how much but according to Politico it is “hundreds of millions of pounds” between 2003 and 2016.

@andypandy True. But the chances are most of the refugees, if they speak a second language speak English. Do you think they would have a better chance of rebuilding their shattered lives in France or the UK in this situation? What would you do in that situation?

Indeed. A refugee is supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach, not continue to another of choice.

@frosty No they’re not. The Dublin Convention / Dublin Regulation II – which is an EU regulation – determines that the first EU member state which an asylum seeker enters is responsible for processing their asylum request. The asylum seeker may apply for asylum in the second EU member state they enter (ie they may cross Hungary and apply for asylum in Germany) but this state has the right to return them to the first EU state they entered (e.g. Germany could send them back to be processed in Hungary).

This principle is a way for the EU to determine which member state should process asylum applicants; it doesn’t apply outside the EU, nor does it imply any obligation on an asylum seeker / refugee.

Some general thoughts about this issue: since France got more strict about this issue, the UK has seen a slight increase in the numbers of asylum seekers entering the UK. My view is that contrary to public perception, this is because currently a large % of asylum seekers arrive in the UK via airports, with an increase in people from Iran and Iraq (together with a decrease of people from Eritrea and Sudan).

Regarding paying France: I say ‘yes’ – this is a global issue/problem that requires a coordinated response. And this nonsense that refugees should have to claim asylum in the first safe country is un-workable – places far too much unfair burden on other countries. Remember also that the UK is about 17th on the global list of ‘who takes most refugees’. I sense the matter is become more complex because large numbers of people from Africa are entering Europe, many of whom are simply seeking a better life (i.e. economic migrants).

I can’t understand why France doesn’t just arrest them and put them in a jail until they can be deported, is just due to the sheer numbers/cost? They are in France illegally, if they needed refuge then I’m sure France would be happy to process them and put them in a suitable french refugee camp. But if they refuse then they aren’t anything but illegal immigrants and should be treated like any other lawbreaker in a foreign land.

I don’t mind the idea of genuine short-term help to a small number of people who want it but what annoys me is the sense of entitlement they seem to think they have. We can’t have a situation where anyone living in a country with a bit of conflict rumbling on or with a government we’d consider a bit authoritarian to then effectively have a worldwide free travel pass to go settle in any country of their choosing and be treated to a free ride for life. It’s all very well offering help and aid and all the rest of it, but the sheer number of people who could in theory claim that status would be enough to overwhelm most of Europe, never mind the UK.

This is a silly argument. So all African/middle East migrants should stay at the first fine/safe country they get to. Basically Italy, Greece et al get swamped by 20 million plus people. That country collapses, they move on. The next country collapses..

If we just redistribute those at need like we have done in the past then there’s less risk to neighbouring countries. Right now countries like the US are morally bankrupt for turning their backs on those at need. Our priest gave a great speech at Christmas telling the congregation to no longer call themselves Christian if they will turn a refugee from their door.

@angrydude its not up to your priest to decide that people are not Christians just because they don’t want their country being taken over by mostly MUSLIM economics migrants! These migrants who see the uk as an easy target and want to rape our country both metaphorically and literally. Yes there are genuine refugees in the jungles that need help but the vast majority just want to take advantage of the uk.

The Bexit/Dublin convention is intersting, as currently we send back a few hundred asylum seekers to their ‘first’ country, yet receive only a few dozen the other way round (Italy get a few thousand returned to them but send back only a few hundred). My guess is Brexit may mean an increase in numbers of asylum seekers.

“I don’t mind the idea of genuine short-term help to a small number of people who want it but what annoys me is the sense of entitlement they seem to think they have. We can’t have a situation where anyone living in a country with a bit of conflict rumbling on”

@dave Syria for example? There seems to me to be more than ‘a bit of conflict’. If I was living in a war zone, I would do anything to keep myself and family safe, including running half way across the world to a foreign (in every senses of the word) country. Wouldn’t you?

“or with a government we’d consider a bit authoritarian ”

Again…Syria/Assad? Is his regime ‘a bit authoritarian’?

to then effectively have a worldwide free travel pass to go settle in any country of their choosing and be treated to a free ride for life. It’s all very well offering help and aid and all the rest of it, but the sheer number of people who could in theory claim that status would be enough to overwhelm most of Europe, never mind the UK.

@mo It may seem hard to believe from where we live but none of us is entitled to safety and freedom. We have it because over centuries we’ve forged strong nations with stable democratic governments to keep the peace and powerful armies to defend ourselves with. Collectively we’ve earnt our safety and our freedom.

Many populations haven’t managed this, or have to a lesser degree than ours have. In fact, life for most people on the planet is far less safe and free than ours is, it’s the harsh reality of the world for most people. I’m not against helping people out who are in dire need but a firm line needs to be drawn on who is in charge here, it’s the one providing the care not the one seeking it.

If someone decides they don’t care about their own countries future enough to fight for it and instead want to run away and seek shelter at the mercy of another more secure state then that is their choice. But once they leave their own country, assuming the neighbouring country agrees to take them in, they are at the mercy of that counties authorities. The neighbouring country may ask other states if they will help share the burden and if they agree then maybe they’ll be shipped on to other places, they may even be offered a preference if there is more than one option but the point is it should be the states offering the aid which make the choices, not the refugee.

One minute they are literally fleeing for their lives, dodging bombs and bullets, then next they are picking and choosing which of the richest and most desirable countries in the world would most suit their future career prospects and personal living preferences it isn’t right.

@archer It really depends how long. But if I spent 6-10 years from the age of 15. I’m 25 working, married to a local, have a house, kid, would I just want to go back?

I think you are looking at it very simply without putting yourself in their shoes. Would you trust peace? Would you take your kids back and risk a return? Would you get your job back? Is your house still standing? Is your family still alive or is your remaining family with you in your new country having married there.

I could imagine it would be quite traumatic to go back for some of these people, no doubt some want to return. I’d not want to force them home.

I’m in the US now, married, house, debts, kid, job. I’ve no desire to return to the UK.

@archer You are assuming most people seek asylum because of war. Iran is currently not in a war, but massive numbers of people are persecuted because of political belief, social group (eg being gay) and religious belief (eg being Christian). What surprises many people is that ‘war’ is not a reason to grant someone asylum under the UN refugee convention.

For the record, I have no problem with people staying to live in the UK was they have gained refugee status or applied for citizenship. Sir Mo can visit and stay as long as he likes.

@archer Very few return from UK to their country of origin. Those granted some form of status (after going through multiple processes, about 50 percent get granted) invariably stay long term. Single people often apply for family reunion (eg i know lots of Sudanese men who have been granted and then bring their family over). Vast majority end up working and contributing. However, refugees based in refugee camps in neighbouring countries often return.

The whole thing is very complex. For example, a big problem is how to get refused asylum seekers back to their country of origin when: the UK gov may have refused their claim because the claiment cannot prove they are from the country they say they are from (human trafficers usually steal passports): UK gov may not have an embassy in that country (makes returning dificult): UK gov can only return if there is a safe viable route. And fact is, why would they want to go back – a life working illegally in UK is usually more appealling than going back to a shit country.

Fine unless for example they speak English and have an established family in the UK. Is it better for anyone to have someone live a poor, excluded, disconnected and ultimately vulnerable life in France when they could be connected and productive in the UK? Europe’s asylum systems are a mess, it’s totally unacceptable to leave the Eastern fringes carrying the burden because the western states happen to have a buffer one side and a sea border the other (or a moat as for UK and Eire).

I can’t understand why France doesn’t just arrest them and put them in a jail until they can be deported, is just due to the sheer numbers/cost? They are in France illegally, if they needed refuge then I’m sure France would be happy to process them and put them in a suitable french refugee camp. But if they refuse then they aren’t anything but illegal immigrants and should be treated like any other lawbreaker in a foreign land.

@dave what numbers of people are we talking about and could the French prison or judicial system cope if they do as you suggest?

I don’t mind the idea of genuine short-term help to a small number of people who want it but what annoys me is the sense of entitlement they seem to think they have. We can’t have a situation where anyone living in a country with a bit of conflict rumbling on or with a government we’d consider a bit authoritarian to then effectively have a worldwide free travel pass to go settle in any country of their choosing and be treated to a free ride for life. It’s all very well offering help and aid and all the rest of it, but the sheer number of people who could in theory claim that status would be enough to overwhelm most of Europe, never mind the UK.

I hear what you are saying, and I do understand, but do you accept your position of immense privilege in holding those opinions? Your statements like “We can’t have a situation where anyone living in a country with a bit of conflict rumbling on…” suggest a bit of a lack of empathy for people who have had their homes, livelihoods and at times, family, destroyed by bombs. It also suggests that you can’t imagine how these people might feel to have too little to eat most days, no decent education of work opportunities etc, while all the while seeing and hearing that life is so much better elsewhere. The history of many of the regions where the refugees begin their journeys might also give us some responsibility to these people. We don’t like a postcode lottery when it comes to healthcare within our own country, but we seem happy to accept that those born in some other countries are much more likely to live in poverty or be killed in conflict. I’m not quite sure what the solution is, but your views do seem to come principallu from the perspective of a small child not wanting to share their sweeties with those who have none.

Is the UK already at the limit in terms of the help it can provide to such people? If not, then how – in your view – could we do more?

All those wanting all the immigrants in remember there are limits to how many people can be taken in over a given time period without overehelming resources and without undermining social cohesion.

I think that limit is an order of magnitude higher than what the UK does, but I don’t think it’s high enough – nor can it be – for what may be coming. The international community needs to act swiftly – and violently where necessary – to prevent a country disintegrating to the point where most people want to leave it otherwise it’s really going to get unpleasant.

I think that limit is an order of magnitude higher than what the UK does, but I don’t think it’s high enough – nor can it be – for what may be coming. The international community needs to act swiftly – and violently where necessary – to prevent a country disintegrating to the point where most people want to leave it otherwise it’s really going to get unpleasant.

@andypandy Violence may work against poor governments and their like but it’s no solution to famine/drought/crop failure which with the stresses they bring are likely to be the major drivers of movement and conflict in the coming decades (unless something else changes for the worse!). We’re technically ill equipped to counter those forces but I think we are more socially adaptable than we have had to be of late; accepting as people and societies that people and indeed whole societies will as they have before be forced to move seems the easier of the two issues to resolve in the short/medium term. “It’s impossible” isn’t an option and I hope genocide isn’t either though I strongly suspect it will be repeatedly tried.

@andypandy What do you think ‘the limit’ has been calculated as being? I work in Wigan supporting asylum seekers (quick google should throw up what I do etc). In Greater Manchester, the figure is 1 per 200. We don’t quite reach that figure in Wigan (not enough cheap housing stock) but we have a very well cohessed community. This does place demands on services, but we manage, helped massively by community/voluntary organisations. I believe the UK can take many more (the issue being the uneven dispersal across the UK to areas of cheap housing whose local authorities are possible already amongst the most stretched).

Your point about violent intervention is utter claptrap. Not only does it rarely work, but most asylum seekers in the UK are not coming from typical war zones. These people usually flood into neighbouring countries in their millions (Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran).

Pay for them in what way?? Our present policy is directed to keeping them out. Measures to ensure that cost a lot of money. If we want that to happen, we’d jolly well better share the cost of it with France, hadn’t we?

If on the other hand what you meant was, should the fifth largest economy in the world provide the resources necessary at least to help this handful of desperate people have their applications processed quickly and with humanity, or should we just leave them sleeping in woods in winter while French riot police spray teargas on their sleeping bags every night, until local charities run out of the resources to keep replacing them, then the latter. Obviously.

It may seem hard to believe from where we live but none of us is entitled to safety and freedom. We have it because over centuries we’ve forged strong nations with stable democratic governments to keep the peace and powerful armies to defend ourselves with. Collectively we’ve earnt our safety and our freedom.

No, your grandparents or grand grandparents generation fought for your relative freedom, alongside those of the countries we’ve had colonised.

You, what you’ve done, is just being born in the right place and being a hypocrite.

@mo I didn’t even know where to start there with his post. But its similar in the US, many third and fourth generation immigrants become very nationalistic and anti-immigrant. The best is ‘well my ancestors did it the right way’.. which they typically didn’t anyway.

Anyway the US has just deported a 39 year old law abiding father after almost 30 years in the US having arrived here as a 10 year old. Leaving behind an American wife and kids. Absolutely inhumane to separate families like that.

@mo you seem to have missed the “over centuries” bit in my post. It’s not just our grandparents, but their parents in WW1 and in the many, many generations before that who fought in all manner of conflicts, whether abroad or among rival kingdoms within Britain. If you can’t think on a scale larger and single person and a single lifetime no wonder you don’t understand. I was talking about our population as a whole over the millennium or so it’s taken to forge our nation into what it is today.

You’re right in the fact I’ve not had to personally fight to defend it, largely because of the work done by those which came before us, and that’s a good thing. Hence me saying it may be hard for us to believe that freedom needs fighting for. But as one of the 64 million or so inheritors of this ever ongoing project which is our nation, it’s in part my duty to maintain and hopefully do my bit to improve upon it for the next generation, and so on and so forth. We do this now not by fighting but by being industrious, by creating wealth, paying taxes to pay for an advanced military and supporting fair and democratic governance to ensure our freedom continues.

But for the record, as unlikely as it would be in modern times for the UK to be having a full-scale civil war or come under invasion from another country, yes if it came to the point where everyone was being encouraged to volunteer or even be conscripted then I would fight for my country, and I’d kill and risk getting killed in the process if need be. I’m just thankful I’ve never had to and probably won’t ever need to.

Seem to have missed the “over centuries” bit in my post. It’s not just our grandparents, but their parents in WW1 and in the many, many generations before that who fought in all manner of conflicts, whether abroad or among rival kingdoms within Britain. If you can’t think on a scale larger and single person and a single lifetime no wonder you don’t understand. I was talking about our population as a whole over the millennium or so it’s taken to forge our nation into what it is today.

@isac I haven’t read the whole thread, but if you argument is the one that gets trotted out all the time – i.e. that the Syrians etc should stay in their own country and fight, then surely it’s really not that cut and dry. How many different rebel groups are involved? Is the government force recruiting from the masses who have lost their homes? Who, in your view, should these people join up with – one of the many rebel groups (if so which one) or the government’s army? I’m not sure what the recruitment policy is for the government’s army in such countries, but maybe it isn’t that simple just to pick up a gun and start shooting on their behalf? Maybe some of the people there just don’t know who to trust, which would hardly be surprising…

You’re right in the fact I’ve not had to personally fight to defend it, largely because of the work done by those which came before us, and that’s a good thing. Hence me saying it may be hard for us to believe that freedom needs fighting for. But as one of the 64 million or so inheritors of this ever ongoing project which is our nation, it’s in part my duty to maintain and hopefully do my bit to improve upon it for the next generation, and so on and so forth. We do this now not by fighting but by being industrious, by creating wealth, paying taxes to pay for an advanced military and supporting fair and democratic governance to ensure our freedom continues.

I agree that we are indeed fortunate to enjoy the freedoms and privileges that previous generations fought for. However, if you look at the recent conflicts our forces have been involved in, they could hardly be genuinely claimed as cut-and-dry battles – good against evil, as they are so often depicted. I wouldn’t put my name down to fight as many of the wars we have fought in during recent decades have been more about protecting commercial interests than anything else. Otherwise, why not more in Zimbabwe and similar places?

But for the record, as unlikely as it would be in modern times for the UK to be having a full-scale civil war or come under invasion from another country, yes if it came to the point where everyone was being encouraged to volunteer or even be conscripted then I would fight for my country, and I’d kill and risk getting killed in the process if need be. I’m just thankful I’ve never had to and probably won’t ever need to.

Who would you fight for in a civil war – what if you didn’t trust any of the warring parties? Out of interest, would you happily have fought elsewhere for our armed forces – like Iraq or Afghanistan for example? I know you may not consider it the same as fighting in a civil war or if we were invaded, but if you’re happy to fight for the nation you cherish, why not sign up for the conflicts abroad? It’s a genuine question…

if I’d escaped a civil war I’d imagine it would take a lot of convincing to get me to return and risk family again. It’s not like you’ll just be able to leave off where you left.. there will be huge distrust.

and I’m not sure civil war or at least large outbreaks of violence is that unimaginable in countries like the U.K., especially the uS.

if Trump is forced out by Mueller I’d not be surprised at all if we saw violence on the streets.

@isac Have you ever been involved in ‘a bit of conflict’? It’s all well and good pontificating from the safety of your arm chair, but you might feel differently when it’s your wife who risks being shot, blown up or otherwise having their life brutally curtailed as they go about their daily business.

But that being said what I don’t understand is why, if you were in France, you’d want to come here!

@everyone For those thinking that refugees have a duty to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter… it is a nasty piece of disinformation that is deliberately spread all the time by the usual suspects.

Presumably the aim is to discredit both the way the EU tries to cope with the refugee crisis, and even more importantly, to blanket criminalize any refugees arriving further North, thus my angry reaction

@andypandy Why? I do not see the relevance of your link to what I have claimed. As I read it, your link says that you have to be in the UK to apply for asylum, but that the UK claims it is not obliged to admit anyone who made it, say, to France to enable them to do so.

This is not the same as refusing to consider an asylum application for formal reasons (once the asylum seeker has made it to the UK) just because it would have been the refugee’s duty to claim asylum in Italy or France.

This is exactly why the UK are paying France to have UK immigration checks on the continent: If a refugee made it across the channel they would have no formal reason to refuse at least checking their asylum claim.

Plus if you are hoping on the Dublin agreement then sorry to disappoint. The Dublin agreement is an agreement between member states that the first state coming into contact with a refugee should deal with any asylum claims, it puts no onus on the refugee to do so.

@andypandy You are missing the point spectacularly, and I thought I was the one with English as their second language….

The UK government cannot refuse dealing with an asylum application solely for formal reasons, whether the person claiming asylum arrived legally or illegally. They can of course refuse asylum and deport the applicant, but they have to hear their case first. This is an essential part of the 1951 refugee convention referenced in the opening sentence of your linked document.

The point of your document merely is that the UK embassy in, say, Damascus, is not obliged to issue travel documents to someone they suspect will be entering the UK for the purpose of claiming asylum there.

Le Tocquet does the same thing: If the immigrant is stopped by UK border control while still in France they cannot claim asylum in the UK, as they will have to get there first. Once an immigrant reaches Dover the UK government would be bound to hear their case.

Whether they arrive legally or illegally is irrelevant, anyone can claim asylum in any signatory country of the UN declaration of refugees. This is the reason inter state agreements like Dublin or Le Tocquet or extraterritorial transit zones at airports exist.

Nothing at all in your document says that an asylum seeker must seek asylum in the first country they reach, in fact such a constraint would not be permitted under the 1951 convention. In fact, that would not at all be practical. Do you seriously propose that the millions of poor refugees from Syria should be dealt with by the neighboring countries like Jordan, while only the wealthy who can pay for a flight or hire a yacht that takes them to directly to Cyprus or Greece are free to claim asylum?

Nevertheless, states in common travel areas like Schengenland can make an agreement (between states!) that the first state registering the refugee is stuck with them administratively (an amazingly stupid idea that of course had to fail), and that the states collectively will only hear one application (a better idea).

@flyguy You seem very certain. The UN itself is much less so. See section B, particularly

““Agreements providing for the return by States of persons who have entered their territory from another contracting State in an unlawful manner should be applied in respect of asylum seekers with due regard to their special situation”.